5. Status reports and misc

-- December 2003, f2f planning
Chair notes that there is now an online registration form for the December F2F, and asks all WG members to indicate whether or not they will attend.
-- JohnI review of RDF 2nd LC docs
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2003OctDec/0006.html
John suggests sending a "no comment" response to the RDF WG, unless we find SOAP-specific issues or questions.
No objection to this course of action.
-- Registration of "application/soap+xml",
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html.
MarkN: IESG made a decision regarding our draft in September, but neglected to inform us. We can either wait for the new process to come into effect, or resubmit. Because of the uncertainly surrounding the implementation of the new process, we should resubmit.
David to co-ordinate with MarkN WRT responding to IESG.
-- Re. our comments on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Sep/0038.html, WSD WG
has committed to describe attachments, see
http://www.w3.org/mid/DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA2018D9D6A@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
WSD WG confirms that they will support MTOM in WSDL 2.0, and will start looking at MTOM in January. Need to communicate our confidence in the completeness of our document by then. Also, may be good to collocate our March f2f meeting (in France) with WSD WG.
Chair expects that our document will be 'substantially done' around that timeframe, so that we can meet this expectation.
-- Response from SVG WG regarding suggestion for collaboration on a
"Generic MTOM" spec, DavidF to report. (Proposal at
http://www.w3.org/mid/66558096-0101-11D8-9934-00039396E15A@bea.com)
SVG Team contact said that they will review our documents within two weeks.

6. Attachments (9.30 + 60max)

-- Issue discussion
o 438, Should MTOM accommodate encodings/optimizations other than
base64?, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x438. See summary
at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Sep/0083.html.
Jacek: No, because it doesn't fit our use cases and requirements.
Yves: Our use cases don't go beyond Base64.
MarkN: It should be easy/possible to add new types in later versions, if necessary.
Chair: Gudge, Noah and MarcH aren't here and may have an opinion, but their
arguments are well-established. Proposal on the table is that MTOM won't enable optimisations other than Base64 at this time.
No objection to this resolution.
Issue 438 is closed.
o 437, How to establish base URI?,
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x437. A proposal has been
made, see http://www.w3.org/mid/1066229009.13864.17.camel@localhost
MarkN: seems straightforward
No objection to closing issue 437 as per the proposal referenced above.
o 440, Sharing MTOM parts for identical leaf nodes,
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x440. This issue was sent
back for email discussion after last week's telcon
E-mail discussion wasn't kicked off; will go back to e-mail.
-- Status of MTOM document (modulo separating out a generic MTOM
mechanism), and what needs to be done next?
Jacek: We need to work on the representation header and marking MIME types (which may be partially covered by WSDL's work). This may require a name change on the document.
MarkN: Agreed that the work needs to be done, not sure about the name change (depends on how we package it).
Jacek: We should do these next; first MIME typing, then Representation header.
MarkN: Doing the Representation header may drive requirements for the MIME typing.
Chair: Can they be parallelised?
Jacek, MarkN: Yes.
Jacek to kick off MIME typing discussion by forwarding previous proposals.
MarkN to kick off Representation header discussion.
Meeting adjourned at 9:56am US/Pacific.